SS Columbia Safety

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...

Here's the plan for shuttle escape pods they came up with after
Challenger: http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=780
It would have relied on two encapsulated ejection seats and a escape pod
for the other five crew members:
http://images.spaceref.com/news/2003...pe.concept.jpg
http://images.spaceref.com/news/2003....03.escape.jpg
I don't know if the two ejection seats would have survived on Columbia,
but the main escape pod might well have.

True, but it never got past the concept phase. This supports the assertion
that the downside (risk, cost, schedule, weight, and etc.) is bigger than
the upside (improved crew safety).

Jeff
--
"Many things that were acceptable in 1958 are no longer acceptable today.
My own standards have changed too." -- Freeman Dyson

The thing with escape pods is: one day, it will fail. And then people will say it was underdone and there should have
been another escape pod inside it as a backup, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.


Big fleas have little fleas
Upon their backs to bite 'em
And little fleas have lesser fleas
And so ad infinitum.

Pat Flannery wrote:



Derek Lyons wrote:
If the F-111 escape pod had been two stories tall and designed to
endure the wide variety of extreme environments that the Shuttle
encounters - it would weigh more than the rest of the aircraft, or at
least pretty dammed close to it.


Here's the plan for shuttle escape pods they came up with after
Challenger: http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=780

To me, there still remains the question of how well escape pods will
work. It's not enough just to have them, you also have to be able to
get them clear in time.

It's not unlikely, in a Columbia style accident, that they will not
seperate until too late - meaning they are in the middle of a debris
cloud.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

*From:* Jochem Huhmann
*Date:* Tue, 06 Jan 2009 21:28:04 +0100

writes:

*From:* Jochem Huhmann
*Date:* Sun, 04 Jan 2009 19:30:45 +0100

writes:

How much more weight would have been needed to make it a
proper escape
pod?

At least as much as building a new Shuttle (and then some),
because you
can't get it out of the fuselage.

You're not seriously suggesting that the F-11l escape pod weighed
more than the rest of the aircraft?

No, I misread his question and thought he'd asked how much would it
*cost* to do that and my answer meant that you would first need to
build
a new shuttle to do that.

I have no idea how much more weight (or better mass) it would need.

I was thinking of it from the point of view of doing it properly
originally.

A shuttle with a proper escape module wouldn't be as efficient as the
current design, but it probably would have a much larger fleet by now...

*From:* Jochem Huhmann
*Date:* Sun, 04 Jan 2009 19:30:45 +0100

writes:

How much more weight would have been needed to make it a
proper escape pod?

At least as much as building a new Shuttle (and then some),
because you can't get it out of the fuselage.

You're not seriously suggesting that the F-11l escape pod weighed
more than the rest of the aircraft?

If the F-111 escape pod had been two stories tall and designed to
endure the wide variety of extreme environments that the Shuttle
encounters - it would weigh more than the rest of the aircraft, or
at
least pretty dammed close to it.

The same environmental factors have to be endured by the Orion capsule but
there's no evidence that I can see that an eight-seat version of that
would outweigh the Shuttle!

wrote in message
...
*From:* Jochem Huhmann
*Date:* Sun, 04 Jan 2009 19:30:45 +0100

writes:

How much more weight would have been needed to make it a
proper escape pod?

At least as much as building a new Shuttle (and then some),
because you can't get it out of the fuselage.

You're not seriously suggesting that the F-11l escape pod weighed
more than the rest of the aircraft?

If the F-111 escape pod had been two stories tall and designed to
endure the wide variety of extreme environments that the Shuttle
encounters - it would weigh more than the rest of the aircraft, or
at
least pretty dammed close to it.

The same environmental factors have to be endured by the Orion capsule but
there's no evidence that I can see that an eight-seat version of that
would outweigh the Shuttle!

Of course not, since Orion doesn't also have a 65'x15' cargo bay and engine
compartment. Your point?

wrote in message
...

A shuttle with a proper escape module wouldn't be as efficient as the
current design, but it probably would have a much larger fleet by now...

Much larger? Hardly. We'd have a fleet larger by 1.

As an absolute number that's not very large.





--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.

On Jan 10, 10:58�am, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote:
wrote in message

...



A shuttle with a proper escape module wouldn't be as efficient as the
current design, but it probably would have a much larger fleet by now....

Much larger? �Hardly. We'd have a fleet larger by 1.

As an absolute number that's not very large.

--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.

no, if the shuttle were safer for people more vehicles would of likely
been built.

heck if the shuttle had a liquid flyback booster and crew escape
enterprise could of been refitted with the cargo area a escape /
travel pod for people.

the first commercal tourist vehicle enterprise. that would of done a
lot for space travel.

since the marginal costs for additional flights is low, and a regular
tourist run wouldnt of cost much and helped nincrease the overall
flight rate

wrote in message
...
On Jan 10, 10:58?am, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote:
wrote in message

...



A shuttle with a proper escape module wouldn't be as efficient as the
current design, but it probably would have a much larger fleet by now...

Much larger? ?Hardly. We'd have a fleet larger by 1.

As an absolute number that's not very large.

--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.

no, if the shuttle were safer for people more vehicles would of likely
been built.


Hardly. A safer shuttle doesn't mean it would have flown any more than the
one that did.



heck if the shuttle had a liquid flyback booster and crew escape
enterprise could of been refitted with the cargo area a escape /
travel pod for people.



That doesn't follow at all.




the first commercal tourist vehicle enterprise. that would of done a
lot for space travel.

since the marginal costs for additional flights is low, and a regular
tourist run wouldnt of cost much and helped nincrease the overall
flight rate


And if they had had magic pixie dust....


--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.

*From:* "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
*Date:* Sat, 10 Jan 2009 10:57:35 -0500

wrote in message
...
*From:* Jochem Huhmann
*Date:* Sun, 04 Jan 2009 19:30:45 +0100

writes:

How much more weight would have been needed to make it a
proper escape pod?

At least as much as building a new Shuttle (and then some),
because you can't get it out of the fuselage.

You're not seriously suggesting that the F-11l escape pod
weighed
more than the rest of the aircraft?

If the F-111 escape pod had been two stories tall and designed to
endure the wide variety of extreme environments that the Shuttle
encounters - it would weigh more than the rest of the aircraft,
or
at
least pretty dammed close to it.

The same environmental factors have to be endured by the Orion
capsule but
there's no evidence that I can see that an eight-seat version of
that
would outweigh the Shuttle!

Of course not, since Orion doesn't also have a 65'x15' cargo bay
and engine compartment. Your point?

That you don't seem to have read the thread that you're commenting on?